THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 215494. March 27, 2023
NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, PETITIONER, v. IBRAHIM ABDO, BARIGA P. SARIP, EBRA ITOMAMA, TAMILI** P. MARUGONG, SHAHAINA CAMPONG AMPUAN, MAMARICO B. SANSARONA, ROHANYA BANTUAS SARIP,*** ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
D E C I S I O N
SINGH, J.:
Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 (Petition) filed by petitioner National Power Corporation (NPC), assailing the Resolution,2 dated October 7, 2013, and the Resolution,3 dated October 9, 2014, of the Special Former Twenty-Third Division of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 00840-MIN.
In the first assailed Resolution, the CA abandoned and vacated its own Decision (abandoned Decision),4 dated January 22, 2013, and remanded the case to the court of origin, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 8 of Marawi City (RTC), in Civil Case No. 1918-03, entitled Ibrahim Abdo, Bariga P. Sarip, Ebra Itomama, Tamli P. Marugong, Shahaina Campong Ampuan, Mamarico B. Sansarona, and Rohaniya Bantuas, et al. v. National Power Corporation, National Transmission Corporation, LASURECO (Ibrahim, et al. v. NPC, et al.). The abandoned Decision initially set aside the Resolution,5 dated February 28, 2006, and the Order,6 dated March 22, 2006, of the RTC which, among others, ordered NPC to pay and refund the respondents.
The second assailed Resolution denied the NPC's Motion for Reconsideration.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, plaintiffs['] subject motion is hereby GRANTED, it being meritorious and well grounded.In a Resolution, dated March 22, 2006, the RTC denied the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the NPC.21
Defendants National Power Corporation (NPC) and the Lanao del Sur Electric Cooperative (LASURECO) are hereby ordered to refund and pay jointly and severally unto the plaintiffs the following amounts[:]SO ORDERED.20
- ONE HUNDRED FOURTEEN (P114,000,000.00) MILLION PESOS, representing unjust, illegal and unauthorized collection of FCC,16 FOREX,17 ICC18 from the year April 1991 to December 1995;
- ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY[-]SIX (P176,000,000.00) MILLION PESOS, representing unjust, illegal and unauthorized collection of FCPA19 and PPA from the year January 1996 to April 2003;
- SIX PERCENT (6%) INTEREST of the total amount from 1991 to 2003 in the sum of SEVENTEEN MILLIONS (sic) AND FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND (17,400,000[.]00) PESOS and
- THIRTY PERCENT ATTORNEY[']S FEES in the sum of NINETY SEVEN (P97,537,000.00) MILLIONS [sic] AND FIVE HUNDRED THIRTY[-]SEVEN THOUSAND PESOS.
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is hereby GRANTED. The Order dated March 22, 2006 and the Order dated February 28, 2006 rendered by the RTC of Marawi City, Lanao del Sur, 12th Judicial Region, Branch 8, in Civil Case No. 1918-03 are hereby SET ASIDE for lack of jurisdiction. Accordingly, Civil Case No. 1918-03 is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice to its re-filing to the appropriate body.However, realizing that the CA 21st Division in CA-G.R. SP No. 00981 had already issued a Decision, dated December 11, 2006, which annulled and set aside the same RTC Resolution, dated February 28, 2006, and the Order, dated March 22, 2006, the CA abandoned its January 22, 2013 Decision.26
SO ORDERED.25 (Emphasis omitted)
WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration dated February 13, 2013 filed by the plaintiffs-appellees is GRANTED. The Decision of this Court dated January 22, 2013 is hereby DEEMED ABANDONED and VACATED.The NPC filed a Motion for Reconsideration emphasizing that it is the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) that has original and exclusive jurisdiction over the case. NPC argued that the remand of the case to the RTC would vest it with jurisdiction, contrary to the CA's initial finding in the abandoned Decision.28
Accordingly, the record of the instant case is hereby remanded to Regional Trial Court of Marawi City, Lanao del Sur, 12th Judicial Region, Branch 8, for further proceedings.
SO ORDERED.27 (Emphasis omitted)
Rule 141, sec. 1. Payment of fees. — Upon the filing of the pleading or other application which initiates an action or proceeding, the fees prescribed therefor shall be paid in full.Here, the RTC erred in taking cognizance of the case despite the failure of the respondents to pay the docket fees.
SEC. 12. Class suit. — When the subject matter of the controversy is one of common or general interest to many persons so numerous that it is impracticable to join all as parties, a number of them which the court finds to be sufficiently numerous and representative as to fully protect the interests of all concerned may sue or defend for the benefit of all. Any party in interest shall have the right to protect his individual interest.A plain reading of the cited rule enjoins the trial court to determine the sufficiency of the parties, both in terms of numbers and representation to fully protect the interests of all concerned.
The pertinent portion of the respondent's Complaint states:
a) When the subject matter of the controversy is of common or general interest to many persons; b) When such persons are so numerous that it is impracticable to join them all as parties; and c) When such persons are sufficiently numerous as to represent and protect fully the interests of all concerned.40
The Complaint utterly failed to satisfy the requisites of a valid class suit. It bears to stress that an action does not become a class suit merely because it is designated as such in the pleadings. A class suit must be taken as such with extreme caution for "a quandary would result if the decision were otherwise as those who were deemed impleaded by their self-appointed representatives would certainly claim denial of due process."42B. NATURE OF THE CASE
3. The subject matter of this suit and/or nature of this case is a class suit for damages under Article[s] 2197 to 2235 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. The plaintiffs herein have general and common interest (sic) thereof and they are so numerous that it is impracticable for all of them to be brought before this Honorable Court. The designated plaintiffs hereof are sufficiently numerous and representatives (sic) to fully protect the interests of all;
x x x x
5. As a consequence of the acts of defendants (sic), plaintiffs and[,] several others suffered 'ecological and economic disaster' adversely affecting the entire ecosystems of Lake Lanao which is the very source of their livelihood and existence for several years;
6. Defendants['] construction and subsequent operation of the defective regulatory dam at the Agus river have caused insurmountable damages to the plaintiffs and several others, said [sic] regulatory dam controlled the free and natural flow of waters, further whenever defendants opens (sic) the regulatory dam, plaintiffs rice field, farm lands (sic) and fishponds are deprived of waters or irrigation waters while defendants closures of said regulatory dam during [the] wet season will [be] submerged or flooded with waters, the plaintiffs['] rice field, farm lands (sic) or fishponds thereby depriving them of use, income and or job opportunities;
7. The daily power interruptions, blackouts and or brownouts, occurring in the City of Marawi and the Province of Lanao del Sur have directly caused damages and or big losses to plaintiffs['] businesses and destruction to households appliances, computers, xerox machine, which is apparently ad infinitum (sic) without defendants sincere efforts to prevent or put an end thereof[.]41
By the phrase "subject matter of the action" is meant "the physical facts, the things real or personal, the money, lands, chattels, and the like, in relation to which the suit is prosecuted, and not the delict or wrong committed by the defendant."A reading of the Complaint readily shows that the damage or injury experienced by each complainant differs in degree and in nature. For instance, each respondent has a different type of property, i.e., rice fields, farmlands, and fishponds, which furthermore vary in size. Also, the properties alleged to have been damaged, i.e., businesses, household appliances, computers, and xerox machines, differ in costs.
This Court has ruled that a class suit did not lie in an action for recovery of real property where separate portions of the same parcel were occupied and claimed individually by different parties to the exclusion of each other, such that the different parties had determinable, though undivided interests, in the property in question. It has likewise held that a class suit would not lie against 319 defendants individually occupying different portions of a big parcel of land, where each defendant had an interest only in the particular portion he was occupying, which portion was completely different from the other portions individually occupied by other defendants, for the applicable Section 118 of the Code of Civil Procedure relates to a common and general interest in single specific things and not to distinct ones. In an action for the recovery of amounts that represented surcharges allegedly collected by the city from some 30,000 customers of four movie houses, it was held that a class suit did not lie, as no one plaintiff had any right to, or any share in the amounts individually claimed by the others, as each of them was entitled, if at all, only to the return of what he had personally paid.44 (Emphasis supplied; citations omitted)
Where an appeal is not an adequate remedy, a writ of certiorari may be issued |
The Decision of the CA 21st Division has attained finality |
Endnotes:
* Designated additional Member per Raffle, dated February 17, 2020, vice Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting.
** Also referred to as Tamli.
*** Also referred to as Rohaniya Bantuas Sarip or Rohaniya Bantuas.
1 Rollo, pp. 12-29.
2 Id. at 34-37. Penned by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting (now a Member of the Court) and concurred in by Associate Justices Edgardo T. Lloren and Jhosep Y. Lopez (now a Member of the Court).
3 Id. at 52-55.
4 Id. at 39-50.
5 Id. at 218-231. Presided by Hon. Santos B. Adiong. The case was originally raffled to the sala of Judge Abdulhakim Ibrahim. However, he inhibited himself in an Order Dated October 19, 2004.
6 Id. at 247.
7 Id. at 295-305, Complaint filed before the RTC, dated November 25, 2002.
8 Id. at 296-297.
9 Id. at 297.
10 Id.
11 Id. at 303.
12 Id. at 117-124, Record on Appeal.
13 Id. at 126-127.
14 Id. at 137-139.
15 Id. at 149.
16 Fuel Compensating Charge.
17 Foreign Exchange Adjustment.
18 Incremental Cost Charge.
19 Fuel and Purchased Power Cost Adjustment.
20 Rollo, pp. 230-231.
21 Id. at 247.
22 Id. at 248.
23 Id. at 88, CA Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 00981, dated December 11, 2006.
24 Id. at 61.
25 Id. at 50, CA Decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 00840-MIN dated January 22, 2013.
26 Id. at 36.
27 Id. at 36-37.
28 Id. at 57, Motion for Reconsideration, dated November 18, 2013.
29 Id. at 54, CA Resolution in CA-G.R. CV No. 00840-MIN, dated October 9, 2014.
30 Id. at 20-21, Petition for Review on Certiorari, dated December 11, 2014.
31 Id. at 267, Comment, dated May 22, 2015.
32 Id. at 269.
33 Id. at 254-266.
34 Id. at 321, Reply, dated January 21, 2016.
35 Id. at 325.
36 Estate of Williams v. Percy, G.R. No. 249681, August 31, 2022.
37 Heirs of Dragon v. The Manila Banking Corp., G.R. No. 205068, March 6, 2019, 895 SCRA 259, 279.
38 Rollo, p. 91, CA Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 00981, dated Dec 11, 2006.
39 Heirs of Dragon v. The Manila Banking Corp., supra.
40 Juana Complex I Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Fil-Estate Land, Inc., 683 Phil. 415, 427 (2012).
41 Rollo, pp. 296-297, Complaint filed before the RTC, dated November 25, 2002.
42 Mathay v. Consolidated Bank and Trust Co., 157 Phil. 551, 563 (1974).
43 Id.
44 Id.
45 Boracay Island Water Co. v. Malay Resorts Holdings, Inc., G.R. No. 235641, January 17, 2023, citing Santos Ventura Hocorma Foundation, Inc. v. Mabalacat Institute, Inc., G.R. No. 211563, September 29, 2021.
46 Boracay Island Water Co. v. Malay Resorts Holdings, Inc., supra.
47 RULES OF COURT, Rule 41, Sec. 9.
48 796 Phil. 681 (2016).
49 Id. at 696.
50 686 Phil. 100 (2012).
51 Id. at 115.
52 Marcos v. Pamintuan, 654 Phil. 626 (2011).
53 Government Service Insurance System v. Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, 623 Phil. 453 (2009), citing Spouses Gomez v. Correa, 617 Phil. 241 (2009).
54 National Housing Authority v. Court of Appeals, 731 Phil. 401, 405 (2014).cralawredlibrary